Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents 1 Ukraine 2 "...As distantly as possible from Russia..." 3 Language of low sort pop music and thieves' slang 4 Maybe someone here will be interested 5 Is the cite KM.RU a reliable source? 6 Anti-national sentiment in Russia 7 Russian Cultural Centre 7.1 Russophobia or just a plain vandalism? 8 Tiahnybok's poster 9 Request for Comment 10 Religious aspects 10.1 Our Lady of Fatima miracle 11 Georgia 12 Ghirlandajo's contributions to the "Poland" section 12.1 Ghirlandajo's wholesale reverts of the section 13 Article title 14 Edward Lucas 15 Attitude towards Russia and Russians by countries 16 Baltic States 17 Quoted commentator Vyacheslav Nikonov 18 Sailor stereotypes 19 Dubious 20 Nazi affiliance 21 Religious aspects 22 Turkmenistan 23 E-Generator Survey 24 See also 25 In Western media 26 Russian businessman 27 Does numerical strength of taxpaying community relevant to it's right to receive education in native language? 28 Weasel words 29 Anti-Russian_sentiment#Attitude_towards_Russia_and_Russians_by_countries 30 Compensation and territorial claims 31 Suggestion to divide the article into 3 32 Northern Caucasus 33 WP:NPOV Discussion 34 POV 35 New analysis of British media 36 Section about Finland - difference of languages 37 Do Russians think everybody is anti-Russian?

[edit] Ukraine

Please do not mix Russophobia with ukrainian internal policy! It has nothing to do with russian people.

If part of Ukrainian Internal policy includes anti-Russian laws, such as restrictions on the use of Russian langauge that constitutes Russophobia. --Kuban Cossack 17:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no special restrictions concerning Russian language in Ukraine.--AndriyK 09:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "...As distantly as possible from Russia..."

What does this phrase mean?

Particularly many residents of Western Ukraine see the future of their country as distantly as possible from Russia

Geographical distance of Western Ukraine to Russia is fixed for present and future, isn't it? ;) So "as distantly as possible from Russia" is used here metaphorically, which does not comly with encyclopedic style. Would not it be better if one writes exactly what is ment here and by wich sources it is supported?--AndriyK 10:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as nobody answers, I move the dubious paragraph to the talk page. Let us discuss it.--AndriyK 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The overall Russian sentiment in Ukraine varies geographically throughout the country. Particularly many residents of Western Ukraine see the future of their country as distantly as possible from Russia, ^{[dubious – discuss][citation needed]} and strongly oppose the possible introduction of Russian as a state language next to the Ukrainian language. On the other hand many country-wide polls show that the majority of questionned Ukrainian citizens support such measure.

[edit] Language of low sort pop music and thieves' slang

Did the writers said "Russian is language of low sort pop music and thieves' slang"? There is no such phrase in the original document. "Russian is language of low sort pop music and thieves' slang" refers to the slang spoken by Janukovich, who indeed was a thief when he was young.

I move this paragraph to the talk page as well.--AndriyK 13:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment sometimes is employed during electoral campaigns. In 2004 14 Ukrainophone writers supporting Viktor Yuschenko in his run for a presidency called the Russian language to be a language of low sort pop music and thieves' slang. ^{[1] [2]} Viktor Yuschenko expressed his gratitude and respect to this group of writers. ^[3]

The Kiev Institute of Sociological Research and Conflictology considers that "Our Ukraine", Block of Yulia Tymoshenko and other parties with the nationalist appeal struggle for the anti-Russian electors.^[4]

Nonsense of course. "Yanukovich promises to give the language of a low sort of pop music and thieves' slang the absurd status of second state language". Referring to Yanukovich speaking Russian on TV of course. So I propose to put it back in. Interesting page by the way, because it tells people what sort awaits them if they votr for Yanukovich. The rows of Asiatic looking Red Army soldiers are of course not the writers' doing but the phrase "armed men attacking Ukrainian schools and hospitals" should be in this article as well, of course. It is a better example of Russophobia than most if not all of what we find here.--Pan Gerwazy 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please have look at WP:PSTS

“

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

”

Does the primary source say "Russian is language of low sort pop music and thieves' slang"?

No! It's somebody's interpretation that it was Russian language ment by the writers.

Everybody who knows what kind of people surround Yanukovich and what is his past knows that they speak thieves' slang ("fenia") between themselves. And this is what was ment by the writers. The authors explained this many times:

"Everybody who knows what kind ... "You cannot do better than that to confess that what you are doing is prcisely what you are accusing me off - original research. I am saying what they are saying. It will not be very difficult to find a secondary source saying that the language Yanukovich wanted to make the second state language of Ukraine was Russian, and not Padonki, Surzhyk or even Moldavian (the mother tongue of the mayor of Odessa, whom Yushchenko replaced with a Chechen). Come on, you have been found out - you thought you could get away with a passage in Ukrainian. --Pan Gerwazy 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you and me are doing very different things. You insert your own interpretation of the primary source into the article, while I write mein on the talk page just to demonstrate you that another interpretation is possible. Moreover, there are secondary source that support my intepretation explicitely.--AndriyK 10:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

“

– Дехто на інтернет-форумах цікавиться, чи Андрухович вибачиться за фразу «мова попси й блатняку»? – Ні. Не тому, що впертий, а тому, що не бачу причин для вибачень. Існує російська мова, яку я не ображав і свідомо відокремив від чогось, що нав’язували й нав’язують досі суспільству. Проти цього воляпюку, котрим розмовляє певна політична сила в Україні й було спрямовано цей вислів. Я, між іншим, цим формулюванням відстоював права на чистоту російської мови та права російськомовної частини України на справжню російську культуру, котру дехто плутає з попсою та блатняком.

”

[1]

“

щоб не ображати російську мову, ми написали про мову попси і блатняка, бо це різні речі.

”

[2]

“

"Работая над текстом открытого письма, мы сознательно отказались от понятия "русский язык", ибо дело не в нем. Употребленное нами выражение "язык попсы и блатняка" следует понимать как образно-метафорическую структуру (по аналогии с "язык насилия", "язык войны" или же напротив - "язык любви").

”

[3]

Seems I do not need to look for a second source as you provided it yourself. They said "language of popsi and thieves" instead of "Russian language", like other people say "Moskal" instead of "Russian". Quod erat demonstrandum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pan Gerwazy (talk • contribs)

Not really. Please reread the above quote. It states explicitly, that the point they were making was not about the Russian language but the slang and even this was used in a metaphoric sense. How is this relevant to the article about Russophobia ? --Lysy^talk 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yanukovich promised to make the Russian language the second state language of Ukraine. The text of their letter says "Yanukovich promises to give the language of popsy and thieves' slang the absurd status of second state language". AndriyK suggested above that it was not Russian that was meant there. But they meant (metaphorically, of course) Russian. Only, their sentence was not to be understood literally of course, because it was a metaphore. When Yanukovich had just spoken Russian in the TV debate? Did Yanukovich speak Surzhyk in the debate? I understand what they are saying as "I said that, but I did not mean it: I was using a metaphore." And I do not see "the language Yanukovich speaks with his friends" in their later defense either. --Pan Gerwazy 20:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The same is about "Chehen boeviks". Do the writers say something about Chechens? And if they even did, what has it to do to Russophobia?--AndriyK 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have a point. Chechen is not in their text, but I wanted to explain what it was about. In any cas, the word boyevik in English is only used when referring to Chechens, so it is redundant. The Russophobia, my friend, is in their heads: when you say this sort of thing, you are saying that the Russians only have themselves to blame when the Chechens attack their hospitals and schools. I am not going to synthesize this, because it would be original research - leave it to the readers what they think about it. But we need of course a chapter about how the Chechen war was reported by the press (and conceived by the public at large) in the West and in some East European countries like Poland. --Pan Gerwazy 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I replaced "boyevik" thingy with "armed militants" as more generic. Since authors not referred specifically to any events but explicitly linked possible attacks to the actions of "Muscovite generals", I added that they likely meant Kizlyar, Budennovsk and Beslan.RJ CG 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Can the section about Chechens be removed from the section about Ukraine then ? --Lysy^talk 19:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Chechen boyeviks" can be replaced by "boyeviks", yes. Not by "partisans" of course. Come on, we know what hospital and what school they are talking about. The use of the word "partisan" would serve only one purpose: confuse the reader, who may be misled into thinking this is about the second world war. --Pan Gerwazy 19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean "boevik" of course. Boyevik is a name of a town in Kazakhstan. What would be the English word for "boevik" ? Anyway, I suggest to remove the sentence altogether, as it does not seem relevant to the article. --Lysy^talk 20:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Generic English term would be "armed militant". I corrected the section accordingly, unaware of the whole controversy. RJ CG 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Does not matter how you traslate "бойовик" into English, it remains unclear what all this has to do with Russophobia.--AndriyK 19:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks more like the good old fear-mongering to me.RJ CG 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Boyevik is easier to pronounce for English speakers, but that is not important. The sentence is very relevant, because the belief that Russians (and their friends like the Ossetians) have only themselves to blame when their hospitals and schools get attacked, is more indicative of Russophobia than much of what is mentioned here. And it should the intoduction of a section on the Chechen war and its treatment in the press outside Russia, sadly missing here. "The Ukrainian writers were not the only ones to blame the Russians themselves for ... --Pan Gerwazy 20:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is difficult. The sentence requires the explanation that you just provided in order to be understandable for an uninitiated reader. On the other hand, we cannot make such comment in the article, as it would be your own interpretation, and surely disputable. Ideally, you should be able to attribute this view to a published source. Also, it seems that this may be too subtle to be presented in the article in a clear and not controversial way. --Lysy^talk 20:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pan Gerwazy, what do these "boeviks" or "boyeviks" have to do with Russophobia? Where does the primary source say "Russians (and their friends like the Ossetians) have only themselves to blame when their hospitals and schools get attacked"? This is clearly you interpretation, a vary strange interpretation I must add. Please reread WP:PSTS.--AndriyK 11:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A tagged the section as POV until the idscussion is resolved.--AndriyK 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, link #47 does not work in this section. Secondly, is common sense allowed to be used on wiki? Yanukovich proposed to make the Russian language as a second state langauge, not some slang, or popsa, or a metaphorical langauge. So the letter could only refer to the Russian language in its purposefully insulting way. Even if the letter did not call it by name, it identified the language unambigously by "proposed as another state language" phrase. All the retractions are a typical damage control done by politicians after an outrageous act. Pavel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.172.192.174 (talk) 20:45, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe someone here will be interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust#Requesting_specidic_articles_on_the_extermination_of_the_Soviet_POWs_and_Operation_.22Erntefest.22

I'm not anymore since no one else there was. --HanzoHattori 22:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And also no, they were not only Russians. --HanzoHattori 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is the cite KM.RU a reliable source?

“

Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.

”

Does somebody really believe that KM.RU satisfy this criterion? ;) --AndriyK 16:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

“

An example of Anti-Russian sentiment were Russophobic leaflets spread among football fans of FC Karpaty Lviv during its match with FC Shakhtar Donetsk (from almost exclusively Russian-speaking [5] Donetsk). During the match the Lviv fans shouted their infamous "Put the Russians on the knives!" hymn.

”

Did any respectable media (like REUTERS, AP, BBC etc. or any respectable newspaper or TV station) report anything about this incident? Or nobody heard about it, except KM.RU?--AndriyK 11:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the dubious paragraph from the article. Everybody is free to restore it if the incident was reported by respectable information agencies.--AndriyK 08:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think it belongs here. This is a typical example of football hooliganism, not Russophobia. You could find similar examples in any other countries. --Lysy^talk 09:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-national sentiment in Russia

I just found out that the Anti-national sentiment in Russia Wikipedia article needs a lot of work. Instead of desperatly looking for anti-Rusianism abroard, it's better to fight Rasicm in Russia. Atleast Russians arn't getting killed in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Turkmenistan and the United States , in Russia black students/kids are getting stabted to death because there non-white^[6][7]!!!! Mariah-Yulia 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That article has always been a mess. It was Russophobe from the start and when attempts to delete or NPOV it failed because of the usual "save wikipedia from red terror" crowd, some Russian nationalists set upon making the article useless. They won the argument over caucasophobia not really having become a common word even in Russia(n). They were right of course: Russian racists do not target people living in the Caucasus, they target "chornye", anyone who looks too Mediterranean (that excludes eg Kadyrov) and does not have a baptismal cross under his shirt (proving he is either Armenian or Ossetian), but the article should never have been renamed to this. If you do not see that the title is a complete sinker, because to most people it would suggest "anti-Russian feeling in Russia", and we need a re-name far more urgently than adding old stuff from 2004, you have a problem. Judging on the number of exclamation marks you use, better be prepared for people claiming you may have a COI problem as well.

By the way, Russians do not get killed in West European streets, but "chornye" (Turks and Maroccans mostly) and Negroes do. There were 4 people in Belgium alone in 2006 and 2007 - adjusting for population that would mean 56 on the Russian scale. It could be argued that the situation in Russia is not so peculiar that it deserves its own article.--Pan Gerwazy 08:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not have a COI problem before reading this article! I find it irritating when people use Wikipedia to make there country/group look better then the rest. I must admit I lost my temper yesterday, but i found it again today! Mariah-Yulia 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we agree that Racism in Russia is an existing and growing problem ? Maybe it would be the most adequate name for the article then. This said I don't think this discussion belongs here and suggest to continue it at Talk:Anti-national sentiment in Russia. --Lysy^talk 10:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say more generally: Xenophobia in Russia.--AndriyK 11:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say even more generally: Xenophobia in the former Soviet Union.Lawfrench 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Cultural Centre

Hillock can you please expain your removal of the image, the repeated vandalism of that building is a merit to Russophobia in Western Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You and Russianname have a history of presenting meaningless unencyclopedic pictures for evidence of something. Last time it took efforts of several outside editors to remove irrelevant picture from another article and here you go again with a rediculous picture, which you claim is the Russian Cultural Centre. This picture doesn't show that it is that particular building, it doesn't show that it is indeed vandalism and it presents no proof that it is anywhere in Ukraine. And most importantly, even if all the above-mentioned facts had been proven, which they had obviously not, how dare you make assumptions and conclusions about anything on evidence of one case? In short, this unencyclopedic garbage should not be here. --Hillock65 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So hold on a second you are saying that this is not Moscow Kremlin nor is this Kreschatik in Kiev? There is actually a plaque in the image saying Русский Культурный Центр. Not vandalism you ask? ref1, and here is the same centre with a detailed history of attacks by the most "European" Ukrainian city. Also extravagant claims such as garbage and what goes into an article or not is but a POV you cary, and wikipedia must have neutrality, and all POV's must trumped. Happy edits! --Kuban Cossack 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Look attentively at the picture you were trying to insert. It shows a charred wall of some building. The rest is your imagination. Then compare to the pictures of Kremlin above. Notice the difference. This is NO comparison. --Hillock65 23:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Nonsense if not bad will. Just enlarge the picture and you will see the sign on the wall: Русский культурный центр. Russianname 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russophobia or just a plain vandalism?

Is there any published evidence of Russophobic motivation behind this act of vandalism? It could be done by huligans without any political agenda.--Mbuk 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the article about the Russian cultural center. It is vandalized and attacked every year. The walls were signed with anti-Russian and anti-Semitic inscriptions dozens of times. Now the sculpture of Russian poet was burnt. --Russianname 17:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any anti-Russian or anti-Semitic inscriptions in the picture.

I visited my relatives in Ukraine two or three years ago. All buttons in the elevator in their house are burned, because some idiots have fun watching burning plasic. Such idiots could do the same with the sculpture. You have to provide stronger evidence that this vandalism´action is related to Russophobia rather than to ordinary huliganism.

Please do not remove the tag before the discussion is over.--Mbuk 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the image for now because its authenticity is not verified. It should be included again once reliable sources are provided. Reinis^talk 22:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiahnybok's poster

Can someone provide the reference to a newsagency or some other repuative source confirming that such posters were indeed distributed in Lviv? The point is that WP is not suited for publication of new fact, it rather summarises already published facts.--AndriyK 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[4], [5]. --Kuban Cossack 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

The article in its present state features in section about Ukraine a picture of a charred side of the building, which looks to have been caused by a fire in the transformer. This is claimed to be an act of vandalism. This picture is unencyclopedic, unprovable and dubious. There is virtually no evidence to support this claim. It does not belong in an encyclopedic article and should not be here. --Hillock65 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To me, it looks like someone threw stuff at the side of the building. Just my thoughts. --Son 00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Long version: The plaque on the building says "Русский культурный центр", or "Russian Cultural Center". The damage on the wall is consistent with both paint being thrown and something on the wall being set on fire. The zoomed-in, pre-fire version shows that the thing that was on fire was not a transformer, but a bust of Pushkin, Russia's most famous poet. In other words, the photograph shows paint splatters and a burned statue, hence is consistent with the claim of vandalism. The only thing we need now is evidence that shows the building in question is located in Lviv, and not, for example, Kiev. This evidence is not hard to find: this article states that on the night of April 25, 2007, the bust of Alexander Pushkin on the facade of the Russian Cultural Center in Lviv was set on fire and destroyed (because it was made of flammable plastic). Putting 2 and 2 together, it seems clear to me that the picture is genuine. Since vandalism against a Russian Cultural Center would be interpreted by many reasonable people as a sign of Russophobia, the photograph belongs in the Russophobia page.

Short version: image is encyclopedic, provable, and genuine. However, the "before vandalism" Pushkin image also needs to be added to provide proper context. Tetromino 01:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am removing this RFC from the list of RFCs. If it is still active then please resubmit. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious aspects

Is negative attitude to Orthodox religion relevant to Russophobia? There are many predominantly Orthodox nations, Russian is only one of them. There are also Orthodox monorities in predominantly Catholic or Protestant countries, wich are not Russian nationals or ethnic Russians.

I wonder, does any serious source attribute the rivary between Orthodoxy and Catholicism to Russophobia, or this is just somebodies POV and OR?--Mbuk 07:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK: have a look at the history and talk page of Belarusian Greek Catholic Church, at Union of Brest, at Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (where you will notice that someone in 2000 was still calling the Russian Orthodox Church "the red church". Put simply, most Orthodox (and they have protestants on their side) contend that the Roman Catholic Church got the Polish government and later also the Austrian and Austro-Hungarian empires to support the Union of Brest to counteract Russian (pardon me, "Muscovite")influence in Eastern Europe. So, after the fall of Constantinople, the political and the religious aspect got intertwined. As for Orthodox outside the normal Orthodox area, it is noteworthy that both the Czechs who converted to Orthodoxy after 1919 (Czech Orthodox Church, finished off by the nazis) and the American Slovaks and Ruthenes who went from Greek Catholic to Orthodox (when the American Roman Catholic curch wanted to impose Italian priests on them) were called Russophile churches. --Pan Gerwazy 09:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can cite serious author who interprets what you have written as Russophobia, please consider rewriting the section Russophobia#Religious aspects. Anyway, what is now written in the article is quite different from what you are telling here. It might be related to "Greekophobia", but not to Russophobia. I'll remove the corresponding paragraph. You are invited to replace it with more relevant information, if you can cie serious authors.--Mbuk 23:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our Lady of Fatima miracle

Can any serious author be cited that interpret this stuf as Russophobia?--Mbuk 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Its an attempt of the catholic church to convert Russia-Russians to catholicism.--84.94.37.90 09:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia

“

Many Georgians see the Russian government as the ultimate culprit behind the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict‎ and the Georgian-Ossetian conflict

”

Does any critical view at the Policy of the Government of the country X have to be considered as X-phobia? If somebody disagries with thepolicy of Bush's policy in Iraq, is hé "americanophob"? What about Americans who criticise the policy of their government? Are they also "americanophobs"?

Are the Russians having negative opinion about Putin's regime "russophobs"?--Mbuk 08:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, nobody objects. I'll delete the section about Georgia.--Mbuk 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but are you people stupid?? GEORGIANS HATE RUSSIANS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.49.114 (talk) 21:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

If you have any reliable source saying that, please add it. Otherwise, please don't use Wikipedia for spreading xenophobia.80.235.67.188 06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghirlandajo's contributions to the "Poland" section

Please explain the purpose of calling Gazeta Wyborcza, the then largest Polish daily newspaper, a "an obscure Polish outlet". [6] --Lysy^talk 08:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the purpose of replacing links to English-language sources by links to Polish-language sources and cite the appropriate guideline which qualifies these edits as appropriate. I might add tons of material to Anti-Polonism and to this article, but I would not, because I don't want to stir up controversies. As one Estonian said to my friend in Tallinn, "Remember that the Russian's eyes may be blue, but his arse is black." I don't think any encyclopaedia is supposed to contain remarks of this sort, as well as arbitrary quotations from media. Anyone insisting on stray quotations from Polish media should familiarize himself with WP:SYN. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no Polish language source link. You replaced one English source link with another English source link. Now, back to my question: what was your purpose in calling the major Polish newspaper "an obscure Polish outlet" ? --Lysy^talk 12:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghirlandajo's wholesale reverts of the section

I don't mind citing the NYT's commentary as the source, especially that it was NYT, who in the very same article stated that Pavlovsky was "an adviser to President Vladimir Putin of Russia". The statement by the Russian analyst Boris Makarenko was fully sourced as was the statement of Adam Rotfeld. They explain the political nature of the Polish-Russian enmity very well. I don't think that the political row is very relevant to Russophobia itself, but it can stay if you insist. However the reasons for your revert of all the other edits still await your explanation. --Lysy^talk 09:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Second.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You have added some tendentious stuff about Partitions of Poland, conveniently forgetting to mention: 1) that it was not Russia who instigated the partitions; 2) that the first partitions resulted in the occupation of enthically Ukrainian and Belarusian territories whose Orthodox East Slavic population had been oppressed by Catholic West Slavic Poles for centuries; 3) that the core territory of Poland was not occupied until the Poles led Napoleon into Moscow, retracing their route of 1612. To assume that Russia was wrong to liberate East Slavs from the centuries of religious and cultural oppression is POV. We are not expected to pass facile judgments. In short, the entire issue is too controversial to be treated briefly. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not add any "tendentious stuff". This was a direct citation from the previously cited Russian analyst, and it's hard to accuse him of being Russophobic or tendentious in the direction of anti-Russian sentiment. I simply expanded the quotes provided by the anonymous editor without a context with a more prominent statement from the same source. I understand that your personal opinion may differ with that of Boris Makarenko, but that's no reason enough to remove his citation. --Lysy^talk 12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1) "it was not Russia who instigated the partitions": "Catherine's the Great leading part in Partitions of Poland and other expansive policies [produced] by the end of the 18th century the phenomena known as Russophobia"[7]. Of course, it is true that Russian policy varied, and Prussia was perhaps the main instigator - but in all three partitions, Catherine's eventually supported them completely.

2) "that the first partitions resulted in the occupation of enthically Ukrainian and Belarusian territories whose Orthodox East Slavic population had been oppressed by Catholic West Slavic Poles for centuries": sure, sure, and Russian reign was much more enlightened: "[Catherine] reduced the status of serfs to chattel property. Under Catherine, the Ukrainians lost the last vestiges of sovereign self-government as a people. The Jews [...] were confined to Pale of Settlement. Catherine's repression of the Jews set the model for her successors..." [8]

3) "that the core territory of Poland was not occupied until the Poles led Napoleon into Moscow, retracing their route of 1612". Core territory is a quite POVed concept, but let me reply that Russia certainly didn't occupy back ('reclaim') any Russian core territories in the last partitions - and it had no more right to the Ukrainian, Belarusian or Lithuanian lands then the Poles.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it had. It is Rus territory, Orthodox territory. Russia had more rights on it in every respect. In Russia there was the serf system, but there was no ethnic discrimination of Ukrainians. In Russia, a Ukrainian could be in any state office, better don't ask about Poland. A Ukrainian was regarded as equal in Russia. Moreover, there was the Treaty of Pereyaslav, whereas Ukrainian never expressed any wish to be with Poland. Moreover, they slaughtered Poles under German occupation and didn't do that with Russians. Why? Voyevoda 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough of that emperialist BS! Not even all Ukrainians and Belarusians are Orthodox. If anyone wants to read about the slaughter of Russians by Ukrainians read more. For example here: The Battle of Konotop. Keep to the subject matter of the article and steer away from loaded Russian nationalist assumptions. --Hillock65 17:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually nearly all of Belarusians ARE Orthodox. Although I agree that there are some Ukrainians who are not Orthdox, though anti-Russian sentiment rarely travels beyond their haven, as correctly pointed out by your example.--Kuban Cossack 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It starts to look like a political or historical forum. Gentlemen, it is not our job here, to decide who had more and who less rights to occupy Ukraine and Belarus. The role of WP descriptive, rather than prescriptive. The discussion like this one is completely useless for Wikipedia.--AndriyK 17:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the whole dispute about who had more "rights" to occupy Ukraine is inherently silly and does not belong here. --Lysy^talk 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

[edit] Edward Lucas

Just for the record, I strongly object to the inclusion of my article about "NASHI" being used as a source on this page. The accusation of racial prejudice is an outrageous slur. Surely it is possible to object to the current occupants of the Kremlin, their youth movements, and other political phenomena without being subject to this disgusting accusation? I strongly suggest that this page be deleted, or completely rewritten as "controversies about Russian politics and history".Edwardlucas 14:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably don't need to. InoSMI.ru is obviously not a reliable source, but in the business of portraying foreign mass media as Saying Nasty Things About Russians(tm). On that grounds, I'll revert that inclusion. Digwuren 14:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Russians are an ethnic group, not a race. This just shows the quality of E. Lucas-s journalism. Diwurgen, inosmi has nothing to do with the earticle-s content. The site just published the translation of the piece. The reference will be restore as soon as I have time.Lawfrench 22:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attitude towards Russia and Russians by countries

Do we really need that kind of hate speech? It's also OR problem, as WP:OR includes introduction an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source. Propose to remove this whole section. Also other sections need rewriting.

[edit] Baltic States

The events listed under Estonia and Latvia are not events of anti-Russian sentiment, but Russian-language media accusations (and baseless at that) of such sentiments. In order to rectify this, I provided the relevant context, and for some reason, Mikkalai reverted it. Why? Digwuren 18:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it is your spin to make an illusion that your Russophobia is a fault of Russian newspapers. `'Míkka 18:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not have such a phobia, but I do have a buttload of sources pointing out that Russian newspapers make such accusations, and that they're baseless.

Besides, you still did not explain removal of the necessary context. For example, why would you not want it to be pointed out that the Latvia's schools affected by the 2004 law have been, and still are fully funded by the Latvian state? Digwuren 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, russians and latvians and estonians are one happy family. And it is kremlin who stirs the mud. I hear you. `'Míkka 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First, you're providing a false dilemma here, which is certainly not useful to your position -- unless you want to be seen as a cheap rhetorician.

Second, Kremlin's rôle is only a part of the story. A major problem is that of Russian journalistic culture, which tends to be much more yellow than is the custom in the West, and is very rather easily provoked into running unchecked sensationalist stories. As a Russian emigrant, you should have noticed how much Pravda has in common with National Enquirer.

Third, even if that was not the case, the context is still relevant. You can't remove it and hope to achieve WP:NPOV. Digwuren 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Senseless accusation against sources, which are objective and are yet to be proven false don't warrant massive change in opinions. Even Hitler did not openly say that all Russians are pigs. Same with the Baltic states, what we have is a collection which only points in the direction of Russophobia. However unlike your spin-off Estophobia, there is actually real events and facts to back them up, not senseless accusations. Please don't revert until consensus is reached. --Kuban Cossack 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusation remains an accusation regardless of the source. What you are saying sounds like an attempt to remove context to further your POV and that simply isn't OK. Reverting the whole thing makes no sense. However "Superfluous accusations of Anti-Russian sentiment" is out of place here and should be removed.--Alexia Death 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged into the lead. Something like "Also, anti-Russian sentiment is sometimes baselessly alleged by Russian media and authorities", and links to few newspieces analysing such baseless accusations. Digwuren 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I remember the context that Estophobia contained, now you want bring this article to the same "standard"...pathetic --Kuban Cossack 21:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quoted commentator Vyacheslav Nikonov

I suggest that it is a cute but totally pointless quote. We need an encyclopedic discourse about the roots of Russophobia, not a collection of witticisms. I move to delete it. BTW, WTH is this "prominent" Vyacheslav Nikonov? `'Míkka 19:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why it is pointless? Because you don't like this? Actually this gives an example and explanation of Russophobic attitude in some countries. And at the same time you suggest that all this section about countries is an "encyclopedic discourse about the roots of Russophobia" and not just OR to push a POV? About "prominent" you could find same word when reading reference.

Yes I like it: it is funny. It gives an opinion (of a Canadian friend (sic!) ) but not an explanation. While it is cute, it is stupid at the same time. French are white as well, and think very different from Americans. But no one in clear mind would explain Amerrican francophobia by French being non-colored. `'Míkka 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning OR tag, it was already discussed at the talk page and the page [9]. So I kindly ask you to put the OR tag back.

The tag sits right on top of the article. The exact same concern is valid for many sections. `'Míkka 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And this is NOT a problem with "Religious aspects"?

It isn't as much pointless as discussing the issue through an analogy. In an encyclopædic text, such approach is problematic, and attempts to find more appropriate sources dealing in this matter are certainly useful. Digwuren 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This section has lot of OR problems, just some of them:

• "Political blocks such as GUAM were created to limit Russian influence in the ex-Soviet republics" - That kind of statement needs reference. It was several times asked and several times deleted by Kuban Kazak. Last sticker has been already for 4 month without any reference provided, so it is probably OR, and as such should be deleted.
• "more than 4 million ethnic Russians have immigrated to Russia from other former Soviet republics in 1990s." - referenced statement, but actually there is no proof that they immigrated because of anti-Russian sentiment. The source doesn't say anything about reasons. Maybe they immigrated because of anti-Russian sentiment, but maybe they are economic immigrants, or maybe they are great Russian patriots who returned to their Homeland to rebuild modern democratic Russia? We just don't knew, and giving this as example of anti-Russian sentiment is OR.
• "Many Azerbaijanis resent Russians" - Again, no reference. If there are many, you probably have problem to name at least ten of them?
• Occupation of the Baltic states. Interesting legal dispute, but what it has to do with anti-Russian sentiment? Is there any citation providing that there is anti-Russian sentiment in the Baltics because of the Soviet occupation? If not, this paragraph should be removed.
• All this unsourced "historical revisionism" crap inserted by Kuban Kazak recently doesn't need any comment. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not bulletin of Nashi movement. Even sourced, this not belongs here, but in some more relevant article.
• Citation of Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga". How this is related to the Anti-Russian sentiment or Russophobia? Did she talk about all Russians—Russians as nation? Or maybe you would like to say that Soviet veterans in Riga don't drink vodka and eat vobla on May 9? Just describing factual behavior of group of people is Anti-Russian sentiment? And who said this is an anti-Russian sentiment?
• Citizenship policy. Does jus sanguinis citizenship rules in any country (including Russia) should be considered as Anti-Russian sentiment? Again, this association is OR.
• If there is general xenophobia in Japan (citation needed), it can't be classified as specific Anti-Russian sentiment. And saying that Japanese are Russophobic because they think that all Russians behave as Russian sailors, is a very interesting point of view. What the Russian sailors have done to Japanese?
• Turkmenistan. This is an issue of human rights in general, not a specific Anti-Russian issue.

There are more that kind of OR things, and the main thing is a synthesis of different facts to make a case, which itself is OR. Also several references are problematic. Do you really know anybody who believes that Komsomolskaya Pravda (tabloid) or Compromat.ru are encyclopedic sources? In general, I propose to remove whole section and rewrite all modern anti-Russian sentiment from scraps without any kind of "hate lists".80.235.49.9 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, I implemented some of the more obvious changes. Reinis^talk 16:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Kuban Kazak added again compensation claims issue. It was removed previously, because, it's not Anti-Russian thing, but could be, if even so, legal dispute between countries. Before moving this paragraph as non-related to the topic, it also included information, which is missing in the version of Kubak Kazak:

• No compensation claim has been presented to Russia;
• On September 30, 2004 the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation published a report, which contended, that Russia, as the legal successor to the Soviet Union, is entitled to compensation for having vacated the three Baltic states.

So, current version is very POV.80.235.49.9 16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the edits by Kuban kazak (talk · contribs), and I agree that they seem quite partisan. I've reworked the Baltic states subsection that he changed to make it more neutral. Reinis^talk 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sailor stereotypes

Sailors, often being somewhat isolated from the "landlubber" folks for extended periods of time (though admittedly, this has become less of a factor by now than it was a century ago) tend to carry a culture different from those of most ports they visit. Often, this culture is more "liberal" than those of more stationary professionals, especially in matters of initiative and sexuality, and accordingly, land-bound people tend to view sailors as amoral, savage, or uncultured. This effect is usually the stronger the more culturally homogenous the land people in question are -- and Japanese happen to be more so than people of most European regions since the Migration Period, which is what is (regrettably) considered the 'baseline' by many Wikipedian editors. (See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.)

In context of anti-Russian sentiments, this is relevant because for many Japanese, all Russians they ever see are sailors, and thus, it's relatively easy to equate these two categories — and carry over the stereotypical characterisations. Similarly, for many Japanese, the only Americans they see first-hand (as opposed to via television) are the United States Air Force troops stationed in Japan, and accordingly, Japanese tend to carry military stereotypes over to Americans. However, this phenomenon is considerably weaker, largely due to American people being a relatively frequent topic in many Japanese TV programmes. Digwuren 22:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

I could not find a good positive source regarding pre-war Latvian law not providing for naturalisation, only hints. Accordingly, I have asked Vecrumba to check the issue, and preliminary sources provided by him have made me consider this claim suspicious. Accordingly, I have attached a {{dubious}} tag to it. Digwuren 07:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi affiliance

Generally, there's a point to be clarified. The article sais: "These allegations may be coupled to similarly non-factual accusations of Nazi affiliation." It's an interesting point. But don't you just mistake understandable negative reaction on SS marches and erecting monuments for SS veterans, with accusations of "Nazi affiliation" made on official level? I of course can cite my sources, but surely the author of these lines meant something particular, so I would like to listen to which Russian official and where had accused Latvia or Estonia of Nazi affiliation, and on which grounds. I'm sorry, I can't read in national languages of these countries, so could you please cite English or Russian sources, or at least provide some computer translation from those languages. ellol 10:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not. First of all, there are no SS marches or "monuments for SS veterans" in Estonia, but a watcher of Russian news media would be easily misled to believe otherwise. Digwuren 11:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, first of all, I didn't accuse you, or any person, or any country. Please, be civil, too. But note also that I don't claim that all happened in Estonia.

Look at this: [10], [11]. In 2005, 600 veterans of SS Waffen unit, marched in Riga, the marches being approved by the President of Latvia. In the next year, similar march was cancelled by authorities of Riga. Now look: [12]. There was a scandal in Estonia in 2002, as a monument to be opened contained SS insignia and showd Waffen SS soldier. That lead to demolition of the monument. In 2004 a monument honouring those who fought with Nazi against Soviet Union was opened in Estonian city of Lihula [13]. Also, there are monuments for SS soldiers at the Sinimae heights in Estonia[14].

There was also case of Vasily Kononov in Latvia [15] [16].

You can say that these events triggered unproportional, exaggerated reaction from Russia, and it made too much fuzz of it. Perhaps, it might look so from Estonian POV. But just to claim, that Russia accused -- who did it accuse, by the way? -- or may accuse someone of "similarly non-factual accusations of Nazi affiliation", is weird.

Anyway, what's "affiliation with Nazi" in your opinion? ellol 13:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your presentation of information shows how uninformed(desinformed?) you are. The first two you listed about Estonia [17] and [18] are the same monument, set up twice, the later as Monument of Lihula. The monument had no Waffen SS insignia, just the generic German uniform. And it never was intended as a monument for Nazis, it was a monument to men that picked the wrong side out of desperation to keep the atrocities that occurred during the first soviet occupation from happening again and failed. Or to those who were simply drafted without choise. A bit tasteless since for the rest of the world Nazis were the greater evil... But its a bit hard to see the whole picture when soviets have just taken people from your village to imprisonment and miserable lives in Siberia. This applies to most men on the wrong side of the front. So what "Nazi affiliation" are we talking about here.--Alexia Death 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexia, from one side, I can understand you, people were in awful situation. From the other side, I can't understand you, because they fought, as you put that, on the wrong side. Just like I can't understand people from the Russian Liberation Army who also collaborated with Nazi. Anyway, it's clueless here, as I'm not anybody to judge, and moreover, it's not the point in this article.

Now it sais: "It should also be pointed out that anti-Russian sentiment, especially that based in foreign countries, is sometimes baselessly alleged by Russian media and authorities. These allegations may be coupled to similarly non-factual accusations of Nazi affiliation."

I understand and agree, that you, the Estonians, have your point of view and your truth. But can you too understand, that we in Russia have our truth?

What, did Russian media baselessly alleged Uruguay, or the Democratic Republic Kongo, or Argentina, or don't know, Zimbabve or Iran of anti-Russian sentiment? I want source for that! Did Russian authorities couple to that non-factual accusations of Nazi affiliation? Please, provide sources! ellol 21:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The truth isn't that Estonians are "Nazi affiliated" as Russian media puts it. You yourself admit it, we have our own truth. It has nothing to do with Nazis or any sympathy to them. It has all to do with trying to survive when two giants battle over your home. Brothers of our nation, separated only by few years at birth may have ended up on opposing sides in battle due to drafts. How can we condemn one over the other, one joined the army that somewhere supported genocide of some people the other joined an army that came with "liberation" and a genocide on their own people... Or we condemn both? Even tho they had no choice? See the dilemma? So how is spreading lies and exaggerations in Russian media serving your truth? Or perhaps it is not your truth that is being served, but your myth of greatness? Does it make your nation feel grater, if they name their number one enemy a country of 1,4 million? It's like a high-school boy loathing and bullying a five year old... And I don't understand it. --Alexia Death 06:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As for Sinimäed monument, there was raised a small memorial with no Nazi/Communist/other symbolics whatsoever (well, excluding Christian, as it is a cross in stone circle) on year 2000 with simple dedication "For the fallen". It was raised there in hopes for it to become a place where veterans in both sides - Red Army and Waffen SS - could peacefully meet. I have no idea what is happening there now, but I know that on first few years Estonian veterans on both sides held meetings there - peaceful affairs where they put flowers on the nearby graves and sung wartime songs, all Russian, Estonian and German. I couldn't find a decent picture of the memorial, but there is one here, rather small, unfortunately. As usual, Russian media has made it into some kind of "Estonians worship Nazis" thing... don't know why anyone still believes that. Sander Säde 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case, that part of the lead has POV issues. If it can't be reworded and sourced better, it should go. Reinis^talk 08:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but these attempts by Baltic editors to have this in the lead is simply incredible. These are matters of opinion, no matter how many Baltic POV sources you cite. Russians have their own opinions, and Baltic countries have their own opinions on these issues.--Ilya1166 08:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion, anyway. :) Reinis^talk 13:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am truly happy that one Estonian contributor took it on him/herself to remove irrelevant POV-pushing statements introduced by other Estonian wikipedian. Let's leave this sorry step behind. RJ CG 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this nazi crap had to be gone, but grouping editors by their nationality is something what already happened seventy years ago in some countries.

[edit] Religious aspects

Does Anti-Orthodox is a same as Anti-Russian? If not, this section has nothing to do in this article.

No arguments are presented that Anti-Ortodox sentiment and Anti-Russian sentiment are same thing. Therefore this section will be removed.80.235.67.188 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkmenistan

Cancellation of the dual-citizenship agreement is an intergovernmental issue. This can't be classified as Russophobia or Anti-Russian sentiment. In this case cancellation of any agreement by country x should be mean anti-country y sentiment. Concerning recognition of diplomas, does the non-recognition applies only to the Russian diplomas or to all foreign diplomas? If to all, this is not Anti-Russian sentiment. Also, according to the international law there is no obligation to transmit foreign TV and radio programs. So, it seems that only discrimination at universities should remain, if it is proved that this applies especially to ethnic Russians.

It is Russophobia, as Turkmenistan is a heavy-russified country where the russian language has the same status(in many cases bigger) as Turkmen, the mothertounge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.49.114 (talk) 21:38, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Russification is not an argument. And could you specify what is the Russian language status in Turkmenistan? However, this is clearly general issue of human rights and not specific Anti-Russian sentiment issue. This information has already included in Human rights in Turkmenistan, so no need to have it here.80.235.67.188 06:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-Generator Survey

I restored it in "Sentiment by Country" chapter. I understand this is repeated info, but survey is highly relevant to chapter. I suppose it should stay there until somebody dares to re-work this mess of an article to some consistent format. RJ CG 14:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have doubts whether its notable and about the methodology they used, because they had a quantitatively poor and non-random sample. I don't think it belongs in the article at all, but if it does, it should stay in the media section, not in the international attitudes section. Reinis^talk 14:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To start observing the situation, in 2002 or 2003 in Russia had arisen the website http://inosmi.ru The first time in history of Russia, it launched a program of massive translations of world articles about Russia (mostly English ones) into Russian. They claim, that they daily observe the pool of 600 editions [19].

It wouldn't be exaggeration to say, that it's since that moment the Russian public gained access to storage of information about what world newspapers write about Russia.

Then, taking the second step. Project launched by E-generator is perhaps the first attempt in Russia to estimate with some quantative criteria the level of neutrality of world media concerning Russia.

Perhaps, you may get an idea of its notability, as Google returns over 1000 hits for "Rating of Russophobia" [20]: this includes republishing of their original work, overview of it in newspapers/blogs/forums, their further works. Not bad, imho.

Their methodology is laid down in the body of the article, and constitutes most of it, in fact. Can you read it yourself, or do you need for anybody to translate tha in into English?

Yes, it's an investigation concerning only a sample topic -- view of Russia's chairmanship in G8.

Yet after that E-generator (precisely, authors of the original work Konstantin Belousov, Natalya Zelyanskaya) made some more work: e.g. a cycle of investigations concerning view of Litvinenko's death and its probable influence on image of Russia and Russia's president: [21]. Another their work was "rating of western-phobia" of Russian media, work similar to their "rating of Russo-phobia of Western media": [22] So I guess their work is intended not to whitewash Russia, but to make it clear what's the world we live in. I believe passage about "Rating of russophobia" should be rewritten with the usage of all three articles. ellol 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

While removing the "see also" tag of the Occupation of Baltic states, Irpen added edit summarry: rm pull/pushing. Why next thing, someone would include Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars into "see also"). This statement is incorrect because this article says nothing about Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars. At the same time there is a whole paragraph about occupation of the Baltic states. Therefore it is natural that "see also" refers to the article, which deals with this issue. If you will remove "see also" you should remove also the whole relevant paragraph.

Also, I'm not sure if "see also" tags, referring to the Russian diaspora in particular countries, are needed. Do you suggest that there is a linkage between Russian diaspora and Anti-Russian sentiment?80.235.67.188 07:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Any country fought with all its neighbors at some point of time. We do not include Russo-Japanese War into a Japan section either. If you think the 1940 events are relevant to Russophobia in some states, the respective article should be properly linked from within the text. In fact it is already linked. Please do not forget to log in. --Irpen 07:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Western media

A sterling example of Russophobia: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9800547 I like the picture. Someone should incorporate the key passages into the article. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

+Not only you've noticed the thing about the Economist. Note the recent article in "the Exile": [23]. ellol 09:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian businessman

Is this passage really an example of Anti-Russian sentiment?: In the mid of 2006, the State Department of the United States cancelled Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska’s multiple-entry visa claiming that Oleg Deripaska wasn't being candid with them about his past business dealings. The visa cancellation occurred in the United States amid rising concerns and calls for counter efforts about Russian businessmen and companies attempts to enhance their economic and political clout in the West.[47]

Unless there's direct evidence that this was illegitimate, it could just be a matter of the businessman. This article should not speculate as to whether certain incidents are anti-Russian without sources saying so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does numerical strength of taxpaying community relevant to it's right to receive education in native language?

I added comment that Estonian and Latvian governments are planning on limiting ability of Russian minorities to receive education in it's native language, despite pretty serious numerical strength of minorities (35% and 29% respectively). This edit had been reversed as irrelevant. In my opinion, numerical strength of community is pretty relevant here, as Baltic countries are, if my memory serves me well, only countries in Europe which limit opportunity to be schooled in native language for third or forth of population (I would love to stand corrected on that). I'd like somebody to intervene to avoid turning this question into yet another "Russians versus Baltics" shouting match. RJ CG 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is irrelevant because you are talking about population rates. But please, take a look at the birth rate statistics.

Let's give you some numbers: Let's say 10 Estonian students are going into 10th grade in school at year 2012. Which is already too expensive to upkeep because only 10 students. Now let's take Russian school at the same location (assuming 30% of Russian minority) 30% of 10 = 3(!) people are going to 10th grade at the same location. There is no way you can uphold a school with only 9 students! (Three grades, each 3 students). Now if the russians go to estonian school there will be 10 * 3 + 3 * 3 = 39 students. Which would keep the school.

My home school was closed because of that few years ago, nearest russian school was closed long time before that because of same reasons. Suva Чего? 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe we're talking about different things here. Reorganization of schools in order to increase their size, although may be used to quietly reduce number of seats in Russian schools, has nothing to do with "plans for phasing them out, with the stated goal of improving the Russophone students' skill of the state languages", as an article says. Estonia isn't trying to find a better way to use educational budget, it is engaged in the organized campaign to deny right to be schooled in it's native language to a huge minority. RJ CG 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read official sources:

Copied from [24]: Why do Russian medium upper secondary schools (grades 10 to 12) need to start the transition to Estonian medium studies?

Transition to Estonian medium studies is primarily designed to enable students studying at Russian medium schools to obtain a good command of Estonian. The ability to speak the state language is essential at university, where the studies commences in Estonian; it is a pre-requisite for acquiring Estonian citizenship, and will be of advantage to students on labour market. Schools in which subjects are taught in the language of a national minority form a part of the Estonian education system. In a small country such as Estonia, this system should be harmonised, as this ensures quality, and quality of education means equal opportunities to all secondary school graduates. The number of students in Estonia is decreasing significantly. According to the forecasts, by 2012 there will only be between 1500 and 1700 students in the 10th grades of Russian medium gymnasiums. This rapid drop in the number of students is a challenge to Russian medium schools, as it is to Estonian medium schools.

The final goal is to guarantee russians a better education. Because estonia desperately needs educated people. Saying that estonia does that because it wants to torture russian is highly ridiculous, sorry. :) Suva Чего? 18:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

Regarding: "Estonia and Latbia [sic.] have been accused of phasing out Russian-language schools {{cn}} (despite having large Russophone minorities)." There is no mention of who it is that is doing the accusing, there is no indication of scope of the issue (numbers of students identifying Latvian/Estonian/Russian et al.) as their primary language, whether primary, secondary, etc., no historical information as to whether numbers are going up or down to indicate whether the scope of the alleged problem is increasing or decreasing. Please feel free to remove the tag on that paragraph once sourced and detail added. PētersV 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed some of your concerns before you raised them. :) This section wouldn't be here anyways if the article wouldn't be coatrack in first place. There is nothing russophobic or anti-russian in the programme, it's main purpose in fact is addressing the problem that schools have to be closed because of low student counts and people need high education and good skills, because Estonia desperately needs skilled and educated people. As secondary reason is intended to bring ethnic estonian and russian people closer and lessen the cultural gap between them. Latvian programme has been reported to be successful thus far. Suva Чего? 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Russian_sentiment#Attitude_towards_Russia_and_Russians_by_countries

This section is suppose to document attitudes by countries towards Russia, but all we have is a WP:COATRACK of Russian government accusations against some countries, like the Baltics. This section needs a thorough clean up. Martintg 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Poland" definitely qualifies for the section title "Russia's allegations regarding attitudes toward Russians in other countries." Might be easier to just change the section title. Then there are facts which are presented as anti-Russian sentiment, all WP:SYNTH. PētersV 23:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to change the section title, but Irpen reverted me. So I removed the Baltic section, since it was not consistent to the title. Martintg 23:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Now Irpen has restored the Baltic section, with a meaningful edit comment "Are you joking", but ignoring the discussion on talk. Martintg 23:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I provided numerous refrences including Vodka Vobla and Chastushki, closing of Russian schools, and of course Territory claims, if those are allegations, someone has to get their facts straight. --Kuban Cossack 09:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what WP:OR and WP:SYNT are by the definition.80.235.55.51 16:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am really not comfortable with "government accusations" statement. Baltic countries and Poland are suspected of Russophobia not only by government, but by wide Russophone community both in Russia and abroad. This is one of very few POVs, shared by Pravda, official TV, Russian independent media (what's left of it) and emigrant publications, even ones who rabidly oppose any action of current Russian regime. In fact, I can't think of other event in the world which draws similar reaction from all these groups (with possible exception of the revisionism of WWII in Baltic countries). So this is not "government" POVs, but the way Russophone community sees it. Which brings another question. Who are to judge what is "Russophobic" and what is "natural course of things"? Generally (I mean, when we're talking about any other ethnic, race or religious group but Russians) such judgement is very heavily based on community's opinion. I.e., if community feels offended by certain actions/statements, it is generally viewed as "phobia" against this community. I am sure Vecrumba understands my point, if he follows debates on blacks and crime in NYC. This rule seem to be reversed in the case of Russians and Russophobia. Estonians and Latvians seem to feel that they have right to judge how their domestic Russians must feel about closures of the Russian schools or purging Russian language from the Universities or revising history in order to paint them and their offspring as illegal and/or hostile alients or denying citizenship to people who (as well as, sometimes, their parents and even grandparents) had been born in this country. Well, going to my original point, who's to decide what Russophobia is? Is Russian opinion allowed here at all? RJ CG 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid making such strong statements on topics you have no idea about. Go and edit topics about Russians in Canada or whatever else you DO know about. Suva Чего? 14:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Suva, should I provide a certificate of racial purity before I am allowed to write about Baltic affairs? RJ CG 13:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My dear RJ CG, in 2000 the entire global Russian press (outside Russia) and tag-along representatives of the Russian Duma descended upon Latvia for their annual conference in order to showcase Latvia's Russophobic ethnocratic vile oppression of its Russian minority. Sadly for your contentions, they all had a great time at Jurmala (known between the wars as the Baltic Riviera), and even representatives of the Duma stated that the situation in Latvia was not as had been represented by the Russian authorities or by Latvian Russian "human rights activists." The agitprop of Russian authorities and of defenders of the Soviet motherland attempting to continue their personal influence by carving out a political base for themselves by calling themselves human rights activists does not define informed public Russian opinion.

   And thank you for bringing up "revisionism." The Baltics again are a touchstone by which to judge intent. Only in the Baltics is countering proven blatant lies with undeniable facts called "revisionism."

   Again, here as elsewhere, if you would like to bring reputable sources to the discussion to contribute please do so.

   P.S. Before independence, Latvia was a favorite place for Russian military to retire, I think the total was somewhere around 40,000. So, what happened when the Russian troops "left"? Anyone with an apartment or house "retired" and legally claimed their residence. As long they obtained it "legally" under the Soviets--that means it could have been seized from the prior owner, who (with their heirs) had no recourse under post-independence law to get their original property back, only something of replacement value--they got to keep it. Not a penny to pay anyone. And if at retirement age, they received a pension from Latvia. Anyone who got on the train went back to Russia got, let's see... NO BARRACKS, NO PAY, Russia not rolling yet in oil/gas revenue. Latvia treated the very embodiment of its former Soviet oppressor--the Russian army, formerly Red Army--infinitely better than Russia treated her own.

   P.P.S. A majority of Latvia's Russians are citizens, and have been for quite some time now. PētersV 15:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm glad RJ CG mentions New York. In New York there are people who care only about who you are as a person. There are (fortunately a very small minority) of people who care only about what label they can slap on you. White or black has nothing to do with whether one is counted as being in the former or latter group. Latvia is the same. I have met Latvians and Russians who make wonderful Latvians because they care about their country, and Latvians and Russians who make miserable Latvians because they care only about exploiting others for their personal gain--power, money, usually both. And I have crossed paths with Latvians and Russians (fortunately a very small minority) who simply insist on mutual hate to the exclusion of anything else. "Latvian" or "Russian", "Latvian" vs. "Russian", has nothing to do with it. It's a personal choice. PētersV 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You completely missed my point. All your wonderful examples and original research are nice, and I have no doubts that you wholeheartedly believe that being schooled in non-native Latvian language (which give one access to 2,2 mln strong labour market) rather than native Russian (which gives one access to 100 times stronger market) is the best thing which could happen to the Russian since sliced bread. This is fine and natural. Statement about Russian jornos having nice time in Jurmala is nice too, although it is pretty hollow, since "better than I thought" estimate is not very informative (if person you quite drew his initial impression from reading opinion pieces in most sensational Russian newspaper, he or she could expect concentration camps, so reality of (for example) closing Russian schools may look like small potato for this observer). My main question was "Are Russians allowed to judge what they consider Russophobic?" You happily avoided answering it. Although your plea to keep clumsy name "Attitudes and claims of attitudes" may be an answer as well. Russians are not allowed, they can only "claim". I can imagine the hell that would happen if you use "Attitudes and claims of attitudes" header in Antisemitism or Racism. RJ CG 19:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• On "better than I thought"-- again, not what I said. The Duma representatives said things were not as they had been represented, that is, what they had been told by their government and by "activists" were lies. I do wish you'd read things the way I wrote them. PētersV 06:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that no-education gives you THOUSANDS of times better job opportunities than education. Specially in Russian maffia. Or being a pickpocket on a public transport lines. (Also I have NEVER heard someone going from latvia to work in Russia, that is like having large villa but preferring to live in a woodshelter.)

BTW, I don't remember many estonian russians having problem with the programme. I only remember one statement from someone. Some russian friends I asked comment from generally liked the idea or remained neutral. One claimed that the latvian programme has been successful. One said that she has put her children in estonian school anyway. Some remained neutral saying that it's probably neccesary, but they are not sure if it works as wanted. No one I know started screaming injustice like RJ CG here. Maybe because they live in estonia and are aware of the situation here? And don't continue beating old incorrect facts they read from some random tabloid with drunk journalists. I strongly recommend either to recheck your facts or start arguing on other topics which you ARE informed on. Suva Чего? 06:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that statement from Estonian that couple of his/her Russian friends did not scream "discrimination" to him/her is highly informative. Especially after the Bronze Night, when some people (Russians) spent 4-5 months in jail for stealing of 3 blocks of smokes and 4 lollipops (the latter meticulously added to police protocol in order to bring grand total 0.1% above amount considered petty crime not worthy jail time) and other people (Estonians) released from jail (within 2 weeks after being detained) after they had beaten and killed Russian youth (with explanation from the police that those individuals are no threat for public safety). In fact, being old enough to believe times of Soviet Union, I can compare this statement to the statement of some Communist functionary back then that there's no state-sponsored antisemitism in the USSR because Jews he knows did not complain to him. Yeah, sure, they felt safe enough to complain. RJ CG 13:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please leave section title as "Attitudes and claims of attitudes towards Russia and Russians by country". As long as it is a mix of both surveys and polls (documented research) and a collection of allegations (not proven), the title needs to reflect both. PētersV 15:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On the whole I will agree with the title, and with what RJ was saying, if a country feels that it is getting a fair share of -phobia then any action it can rightfully see as an evidence of that -phobia. Even if the intention was partially or hardly part of it. Now if that is so, then it has to be presented as it is. Each string of action that can be interpreted as Russphobic have to have: a) why do Russians see it as Russophobic and b) what is the official reason for that action. But Blanking as done here will be reported as vandalism. Put a reason why we should not view Vodka Vobla and Chastushki as a sign of Russophobia. Who is the one that is censoring the article? --Kuban Cossack 11:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Vodka, Vobla and Chastushki is hardly xenophobic. It's a cultural or social reference. It would be russophobia if they forbid the sales of vobla and vodka in shops to russians. :) The statement itself is quite true though. They do eat vobla, they do drink vodka and they do sing Chatushki on 9th. They also do brag about invading baltics. Only problem is that some people feel hurt because of that. Normally people just ignore it or make jokes about it. But I can hardly say it can be considered xenophobic, like many other things in this article.

Because of the vobla topic that has been going on so long in here, I will most likely go to shop today after the work and buy myself some vodka and vobla to celebrate the friday. :) Suva Чего? 11:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Itself it is an inoccent comment, but in context of reffering to old people and their habits, can be interpreted as if she considered them of second-sort. It is like saying that yeah, we do not care about what you did in your life, that you freed our lands from fascism, you are a remanant of an occupier's army, we can't do anything about you, so the sooner you die the better. Now if Russians, not the press, not the state, but Russian people upon hearing it, felt offended. At times, when Bush stood up with Putin as the veterans were driven on the Red Square to pay respect to them, she though of them as nothing but a vodka-drinking, vobla-eating, chastushki-singing bunch of old farts. Now that WAS Offensive. Shame on her...and her parents for not using condoms... ;) --Kuban Cossack 12:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Kuban Cossack, if Stalin had truly simply liberated the Baltics (that is, Hitler was the first invader/occupier) he might for a while at least have been hailed as a hero. However, since the Soviet Union had already invaded and ravaged the Baltics, deporting or killing tens if not hundreds of thousands (including Jews) long before Hitler arrived, it is that which Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians remember him for. You obviously don't know your history. Liberation? It was re-subjugation. Stalin sent hundreds of thousands of Red Army to their deaths just to try and get the Courland pocket back from the last pocket of Latvians desparately holding on to a bit of their homeland (and Germans who were cornered)--and fail. And when the end of the war came, the Latvians were all shot as "traitors" upon surrender. Freed from fascism? The Nazis had long since left when the Soviets came along and ripped down the Estonian flag. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but is not based on reality. PētersV 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Vodka, Vobla and Chastushki is hardly xenophobic." Which brings us back to original question "are Russians allowed to judge when they feel offended". It seems to me that some editors have an obvious problem with allowing Russians to speak for themselves. Suva, is word "circle", spoken in Yiddish, offensive? Well, in States it is one of worst insults which can be hurled at Jewish person and clearly brand anyone who uses it as an antisemite. RJ CG 13:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if Russia stopped ignoring the fact Stalin invaded, pillaged, and slaughtered in Eastern Europe before Hitler ever arrived, as Hitler's partner, people might take protestations of Soviet glory with less skepticism. Until then, RJ CG, you are stuck. It's not your fault. But if you believe and promulgate the story of liberation by the Soviets, you have to live with the results. Russia has an ancient and rich culture. There is no need to resurrect Soviet glory to feel Russian pride. However, if Russia and Russians choose to associate themselves with the Soviet Union and its atrocities, this is the result. Don't cry over being offended while Russia vehemently denies Stalin's crimes--predating Hitler--in Eastern Europe. PētersV 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. How quickly we forget that Stalin supported Hitler's invasion of Poland and by the time the initial Nazi and Soviet invasions were done, meeting in handshakes along the frontier, Stalin had 51% of Poland's territory. Hitler and Stalin started World War II in complete partnership. Haven't seen Russia apologize for that bit of Soviet past either--dividing up Eastern Europe beforehand, schmoozing Hitler, starting the war and all. PētersV 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously under the impression that repeating Baltic accusations ad nauseam somehow answers the question "are Russians allowed to judge when they feel offended". As for your thinly weiled accusations that I promote Stalinism, that does not amuse or scare me. After all, I've been accused of being "prominent Estophobe" number of times and survived. Although I would say that you almost convinced me of your belief that Russians are not allowed to judge for themselves due to their real and imagined historical sins (BTW, should we bring Latvian Red Rifles from history to somehow substantiate, in your coordinate system, right of Russian to get tough with Latvians for providing crucial military component to the Bolshevik coup?). RJ CG 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To RJ CG, reindented...
I'm sorry, but there's only one Baltic accusation with repeated Russian denial. The whole "remove POV" ploy by deleting all references to Soviet "occupations" and "annexations" is such a repeated denial right here on Wikipedia.
   The problem with the article here is that it mixes:

• anti-(government of Russia) sentiment
• anti-(those who parrot Russia pronouncements and defend its rehabilitation of Stalinism) sentiment
• anti-(Russians themselves) sentiment.

Current anti-Russian sentiment (my impression) flows from the top. As long as Russia denies Stalin's atrocities in Eastern Europe, committed long before Hitler came along, and continues to play the same old "anti-Fascist hero liberation" saw, nothing will change. You feel you should have the right to be offended? Yes, you do. Would you like to stop being offended? Look to the source of the problem, not to the symptom.
   And, I must thank you for your comic relief: "should we bring Latvian Red Rifles from history to somehow substantiate, in your coordinate system, [the] right of Russian to get tough with Latvians for providing crucial military component to the Bolshevik coup?" Here we are, Russia engaged in full Soviet glorification mode, and you're suggesting Russia's "getting tough" with Latvia because the Latvian Red Riflemen saved Lenin, insuring the existence of the very thing that Russia now glorifies? PētersV 14:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You of course also can be personal about it, however from my personal opinion. Latvia (or Estonia), when I was speaking to my English freind, I asked what he thought of Estonian Bronze Soldier problem, the conversation went along the lines:

• Him: Where is Estonia?
• Me: Next to Russia
• Him: Was it part of the USSR?
• Me: Yes
• Him: Oh, was it one of those -stan states?
• Me: Not quite, that's Central Asia, its in Europe.
• Him (very surprised): Really? Never noticed it before...
• Me (chuckling): Because it did not exist before
• Him: Oh well, I guess that's why the're pissed off, small nation insignificance Syndrome
• (both of us laugh...)

...And that's my point, little country, nobody, outside saw it dissapear nobody saw it re-appear. Perhaps that is the Source of the problem, nobody outside cared for Latvia, nobody, at large, cares right now. If Latvia was to once again dissapear of the face of the earth, I doubt anyone would even notice the shift of borders on the map of Europe.

Now that was of course off-topic, as are your claims of "Stalinist Chauvinism" what is important, is that Russians and Latvians have different opinions on what is "correct & neutral" for their society, and when the latter implemented its national policy to its standards the former saw it as Russophobia and vengence (even though for sake of neutrality and consensus, assume there was really was no vengence for 40+ years of happiness & freedom). So what RJ is saying is that we have to focus not on the causes of the policy or "Soviets did worse" arguments, but is how Russians percieve these present actions. Regards. --Kuban Cossack 18:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Estonia did exist before, so sorry, as I am for your friend's ignorance. Rather pitiful to hear of two grossly uninformed people laughing over how smart they are. I supposed ignorance is bliss after all. PētersV 06:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You failed to answe my question, again. And since I can safely assume that your cognitive abilities are developed enough to recognize the question "are Russians allowed to judge when they feel offended" repeated 3 times during last 24 hours, I can only conclude that it is your conscious intention not to answer this question and retorting to repeat what I can broadly describe "Baltic accusations against Russia, it's rulers and inhabitants from the Stone Age on", again 3 times during last 24 hours. I think it would be only logical to assume that you happen to believe that those accusations are heavy enough to deny Russians right to speak for themselves. I am wondering, is it kosher in Wikipedia to deny certain rights, normally enjoyed by all racial, ethnic and so on groups, to certain ethnic groups? RJ CG 14:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently that is something reserved for Russians, then, as Estophobia was deleted for exact same reasons that you bring here. Double standards? No, can't be. -- Sander Säde 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there is no point on wasting time on arguing with RJ CG. Specially counting the fact that he might not be who he claims to be. Instead of that, let's go on Liberty Square tomorrow, celebrate the freedom of Estonia and discuss wikipedia? I'll bring the vodka and vobla. My phone number is viiskuusüksviisüheksaükskaheksaseitse. :)

As of the other matters, this conversation seems to grow into another fool-scale discussion. Suva Чего? 21:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Specially counting the fact that he might not be who he claims to be. Just curious, who am I? BTW, vobla is very bad appetizer to be consumed with vodka. Too dry. Pickled herring is infinitely better. Just be careful on sour cream (a little bit is OK, though). RJ CG 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. But it is not really a problem, because I don't drink vodka (Or anything else with over 20% of alcohol content), and vobla fits nicely with beer. :) Suva Чего? 07:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Estophobia had been deleted as WP:OR because author(s) failed to prove that word exists outside of minds of some Baltic wikipedians. Andi-Estonian Sentiment, if my memory serves me well, had been allowed to exist for some time, but had been culled as it failed to develop into anything more academic than interpretation of every critical publication in Russian media as "Estophobia" (gosh, am I scared to think of WP resources needed to host Anti-Russian sentiment article, if every critical piece about Russia is listed as proof of "phobia"). Get over it or try to write an article proving that Anti-Estonian sentiment is anything more prominent than usual grudges between neighbours. Here, as far as I understand, everybody agrees that Anti-Russian sentiment is prominent enough to be included in WP and topic of current discussion is "are Russians allowed to judge when they feel offended". I'm sick and tired to no end to repeat this simple question, but you guys are willing to discuss anything (including my personality) but this topic. There's another important distinction. Author(s) of Anti-Estonian sentiment seemed to be of opinion that their personal feeling of being offended is enough to consider particular publication "Anti-Estonian". Here I'm trying to talk about feeling of the community, expressed through numerous outlets. If certain "provocateurs" trying to "ride the wave" by "accusing Latvian government of discrimination in schools" (as Vecrumba put it), that means they see the wave to ride on, they see genuine feeling of broad community they can exploit to achieve their indecent purposes. I am talking about eligibility of those feelings. RJ CG 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RJ CG, I already told you you are certainly allowed to feel offended. I think you're quoting someone else, not me, on the schools et al. (though I have used the word provocateur at times).

  My point earlier was that if Russians (people) wish to positively impact the image of Russians (people), they should consider expressing pride in their heritage more than pride in the accomplishments of the dead Soviet Empire.

  Right here in Brooklyn Russians walk around in T-shirts stamped with СССР. Nor are such Russians the only ones at fault, witness $300 "authentic KGB watches" on sale in the most fashionable American mail order catalogs after the fall of the USSR. It would seem there's no monopoly on fascination with dead empires.

  However, it's one thing to have some sort of fascination with the evil empire. It's quite another, as in Russia today, to restore the bust of Felix Dzerzhisnky to a place of honor in the courtyard of Moscow's police. You don't see Germans re-erecting Himmler's bust in Berlin, do you? PētersV 02:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing our Russian editors on their opinions on the rehabilitation of the bust of the head of the murderous CHEKA to its Soviet-era place of honor, and whether they believe this act, and acts like it, affect perceptions of Russia. (Don't know what scholarly studies might be out there.) PētersV 00:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compensation and territorial claims

As the history of this article shows, these issues have been cleared several times. First, that kind claims have been never presented by authorities. Concerning territorial claims, it's not even possible to present that kind of claims as all three countries have ratified their border agreements with Russia. Pancta sund servanda. And even in case of territorial claims between to countries, this is international legal dispute, not any kind of -phobia or sentiment. In this case, that kind of dispute should be described in the Territorial disputes of the Russian Federation, not here. Same applies to the compensation issue. Compensation claims have never presented to Russia. Even, if that kind of claim had been presented, it's not Anti-Russian thing, but a legal dispute between countries, if even so. And also, it was the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, who published on September 30, 2004 a report, which contended, that Russia, as the legal successor to the Soviet Union, is entitled to compensation for having vacated the three Baltic states.[25] So, these claims should be removed from this article.80.235.55.51 17:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe Russia is being sued by a private individual in the international court.

The issue here is that anti-Russia gets mixed with anti-Russian when Russians support Russia's proclamations about gloriously liberating Eastern Europe and forgetting everything else the USSR brought to daily Eastern European life--and death. PētersV 02:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to divide the article into 3

I have just noticed this article through AfDs. I'd like to share my oppinion about re-writing it:

IMHO, the article needs to be re-written from scratch, possibly into 2-3 smaller and more specific ones. The reason that similar articles exist is NOT the existence of "a wide spectrum of prejudices, dislikes or fears". An institutionalized policy of ethnic or national discrimination is the reason such articles exist. A WP article is not a good place to compile a list of "clichés". Here is what I suggest to create instead:

• Russophobia - definition of the term, 1-2 examples to show the usage of the term in the literature (half-a-page artilce)
• Cold war stereotypes - an artilce describing all types of stereotypes of that period, including anti-Russian ones, including examples, but not limited to a random, non-representative list
• Anti-Russian discrimination - where one can mention discrimination as policy, not cliches or feelings. Out of the entire article, I could find only one such case - Turkmenisan's ban to reject applications based on Russian familiy names (if it is a policy, i.e. if it is not one isolated case). Ideally, there should be scientific works dedicated to anti-Russian discrimination, and it would be nice to cite those. If you/we simply compile a list by ourselves, who guarantees that the list is representative and faithfull?

It would be like WP editors going through all WWII papers and listing all instances of German airplanes shut down. That's NOT how it is supposed to be done. One needs to find works by historians where the matter of shut down German airplanes is studied, and preferably take statistical info from there. The way the current article is written is like "Accorging to New York Times/Pravda, lt Johnson/Ivanov has shut 2 planes on January 1, 1945". You can put that in the article of lt. Johnson/Ivanov, not in an article which deals in general with a phenomenon, to which lt. Johnson/Ivanov was frankly speaking non-notable.

Finally, the current form of the article contains a lot of small mistakes, correction of which could immediately result in edit war because of misunderstandings and prejudices between WP editors. So, it is better to re-write in user space, where there is no edit war, and to eliminate the problems. Just to give you an example, consider this portion:

A mild form of Russophobia is relatively widespread in the Romanian society. This can be seen as a reaction of both the Soviet times and of pre-Soviet Russian imperialism which affected the Romanian Principalities. Russia's annexation of Bassarabia and Bukovina in 1812 and again in 1940 is widely seen as an expression of Russian's imperialism. Negative reports on modern Russia are widespread in the media. There is a general negative perception of all things Russian especially in what concerns the language and the culture. For instance the Russian language has practically disappeared from Romania's school after 1989.

1) This paragraph tells both that pre-Soviet Russian imperialism is a fact, and that calling it imperialism is a form of anti-Russian sentiment. Rather hypocritical?! If it is a fact, it can not be an anti-X sentiment, and vice versa. 2) Bukovina was NOT annexed in 1812, so the article actually desinforms 3)"general negative perseption" is such a large all-emcompassing expression, it can cover anything 4) the Russian language was only rarely a subject in schools even before 1989 (Romania was very singular in this respect in the socialist camp), so again - willingly or unwillingly desinformation.

These kind of problems can be avoided it the article is re-worked, dividing it as I suggested.:Dc76\^talk 15:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Caucasus

Northern Caucasus is a part of Russian Federation. How it comes that this is the biggest section of this article? I Think there are more appropriate articles to discribe problems related to Northern Caucasus.213.219.80.25 09:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPOV Discussion

Cannot see any! Who put the template and wherefore?Muscovite99 (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No NPOV or no discussion? I think User:Dc76 sums up quite well what is currently wrong with the article. Lots of people admitted it needed improvement when it was taken to AFD but none of them apparently stayed here to fix it. Oth (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Calling Svoboda party "ultra-right" based on a single statement from their leader is clearly WP:OR. A charge of ultra-right" is serious and needs to be better cited. And calling that poster "radical" is simply trying to appeal to emotions. Lets just show the picture and let the readers decide for themselves, there is no need for such POV terms. Ostap 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And look at the caption for the picture: "Modern Anti-Russian poster in Lviv, Western Ukraine, issued by the ultra-radical nationalist political party. "

"Ultra-radical"? Now they are "ultra-radical"? The POV is terrible. Ostap 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New analysis of British media

E-generator, famous for it's "rating of Russophobia" of Western media, compiled new study of British media's attitude toward Russia. Responding to charge that they used translations made by Inosmi.ru (which had been accused repeatedly of deliberate selection of publications critical toward Russia) before, they based new study on original sources, using what's they called "British sources of quality" (The Independent, The Times, The Telegraph, The Observer, The Guardian, BBC). They concluded that British sources paint Russia and Russians as brutal and dirty half-humans/half-bears, always ready to rape superior Western civilization. Article is here. Do you think it is WP material? RJ CG (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section about Finland - difference of languages

Regarding "hence the languages are fundamentally different languages, which might be an obstacle to learning Russian.": I am inclined to believe that Finns can learn languages from three different language families just as easily (or difficultly) as members of any other nation. Maybe "be an obstacle to learning" could be replaced with "impact the popularity of" or "favor the Germanic languages"? --91.155.179.213 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do Russians think everybody is anti-Russian?

According to the Kiev Institute of Sociological Research and Conflictology, whose director Mykhailo Pohrebynskyi supported Viktor Yanukovych during the presidential elections in 2004 [44], "Our Ukraine", "Yulia Tymoshenko Electoral Bloc", and other Ukrainian parties (i.e. the rivals of Yanukovych's Party of Regions) struggle for the support of "anti-Russian attitude" voters. [45] What they hell does that mean? How does that proof that UO ore BYuT are anti-Russian? For me it proofs nothing. Ofcourse Ukrainian nationalist are not going to vote for the pro-Russian PoR! This looks like weasel writing. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)